Saturday, 30 July 2016
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
Friday, 29 July 2016
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- PMI proposal
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
Thursday, 28 July 2016
- [Minutes] 28 July 2016 WPWG teleconference
- wpwg-ACTION-24: Work with chairs + team contacts to formalize who is responsible for the activities mentioned at the ftf around tokenized card payment method spec, and payment method spec good practices
- wpwg-ACTION-23: Look into what the right practice is if we use urns.
Wednesday, 27 July 2016
- [Agenda] 28 July 2016 WPWG teleconference
- WPWG Blog post on July FTF meeting
- Minutes [Was: [Agenda] 27 July Payment Apps task force meeting]
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
Tuesday, 26 July 2016
- [Agenda] 27 July Payment Apps task force meeting
- [Time-sensitive] Please register WPWG FTF meeting on 19-20 September, and other parts of TPAC by 2 September
Friday, 22 July 2016
Thursday, 21 July 2016
- Re: Concerns about Core Messages specification
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: Concerns about Core Messages specification
- RE: Payment Apps Proposal
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
Wednesday, 20 July 2016
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- No meeting tomorrow (21st July)
- Re: Concerns about Core Messages specification
- Payment Apps Task Force Update
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Split out enabled and supported methods (#158)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Split out enabled and supported methods (#158)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Should we allow payment providers to issue queries about their installed payment apps (match on origin) (#160)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Should we allow payment providers to issue queries about their installed payment apps (match on origin) (#160)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Display may be subject to user and local policy (consider UA making security decisions etc) (#161)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Display may be subject to user and local policy (consider UA making security decisions etc) (#161)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] What is the process for rendering the payment app UI (#162)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] What is the process for rendering the payment app UI (#162)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] PROPOSAL: Payment Apps are javascript code that use event listeners to get the PaymentRequest (#163)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] PROPOSAL: Payment Apps are javascript code that use event listeners to get the PaymentRequest (#163)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] How is Native App integration code supplied? (#164)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] How is Native App integration code supplied? (#164)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] Should the payment app registration be for Browsers only or also for other types of User Agents (#165)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] Should the payment app registration be for Browsers only or also for other types of User Agents (#165)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] What portion of the PaymentRequest is sent to the payment app? (#166)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] What portion of the PaymentRequest is sent to the payment app? (#166)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment app] Should merchants be able to limit matching to trusted apps? (#168)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment app] Should merchants be able to limit matching to trusted apps? (#168)
- Concerns about Core Messages specification
- Re: [WICG/historical-paymentrequest] Web Payments WG relation to this repo (#71)
- Re: [WICG/historical-paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment apps] How can we optimize user experience when there is only one match? (#169)
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment app] Should merchants be able to limit matching to trusted apps? (#168)
- Visa Europe disclosure of patents and exclusion of claims in Web Payments Working Group
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Split out enabled and supported methods (#158)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
Monday, 18 July 2016
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] Security and Privacy Self-Review (#61)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- Re: POLL - Preferred time for WG calls going forward
- Re: POLL - Preferred time for WG calls going forward
- POLL - Preferred time for WG calls going forward
- Re: ACTION REQUIRED: Payment Method Identifiers
- Re: ACTION REQUIRED: Payment Method Identifiers
- Re: New payment method draft
- ACTION REQUIRED: Payment Method Identifiers
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
Friday, 15 July 2016
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] How is Native App integration code supplied? (#164)
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Comments on HTTP API before publishing FPWD
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Comments on HTTP API before publishing FPWD
Thursday, 14 July 2016
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Comments on HTTP API before publishing FPWD
- Re: Comments on HTTP API before publishing FPWD
- Re: Comments on HTTP API before publishing FPWD
- Comments on HTTP API before publishing FPWD
Wednesday, 13 July 2016
- NO meeting tomorrow
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] How is Native App integration code supplied? (#164)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] How is Native App integration code supplied? (#164)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- Re: [Minutes] London FTF meeting (7-8 July 2016)
- Three new first public drafts: Overview, Core Messages, HTTP API
Tuesday, 12 July 2016
- ReSpec and messed up characters in the ToC jump at F2F
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] How should the group update documents in 'TR' space? (#167)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] How should the group update documents in 'TR' space? (#167)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] How should the group update documents in 'TR' space? (#167)
Monday, 11 July 2016
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] How should the group update documents in 'TR' space? (#167)
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] How should the group update documents in 'TR' space? (#167)
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- [w3c/webpayments] How should the group update documents in 'TR' space? (#167)
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Web Payments Overview published
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- RE: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- RE: WPWG - No Meeting - 14 July
- Re: Web Payments Overview published
- Web Payments Overview published
- WPWG - No Meeting - 14 July
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Security and Privacy Considerations
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] Should the payment app registration be for Browsers only or also for other types of User Agents (#165)
Sunday, 10 July 2016
Saturday, 9 July 2016
- [Minutes] London FTF meeting (7-8 July 2016)
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Encrypting basic card data
- Encrypting basic card data
- Re: Security and Privacy Considerations
Friday, 8 July 2016
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] Should the payment app registration be for Browsers only or also for other types of User Agents (#165)
- Re: Security and Privacy Considerations
- RE: Group Photo from Face-to-Face
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] What portion of the PaymentRequest is sent to the payment app? (#166)
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] Should the payment app registration be for Browsers only or also for other types of User Agents (#165)
- Re: Group Photo from Face-to-Face
- Re: Security and Privacy Considerations
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] How is Native App integration code supplied? (#164)
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment App] PROPOSAL: Payment Apps are javascript code that use event listeners to get the PaymentRequest (#163)
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] What is the process for rendering the payment app UI (#162)
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Display may be subject to user and local policy (consider UA making security decisions etc) (#161)
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Should we allow payment providers to issue queries about their installed payment apps (match on origin) (#160)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Request] Should we allow a "polling" mechanism for websites to not invoke the API if there are no enabled methods (#159)
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Split out enabled and supported methods (#158)
- Re: Group Photo from Face-to-Face
- Group Photo from Face-to-Face
- Re: Security and Privacy Considerations
- Re: Security and Privacy Considerations
- Re: W3C WPWG: Dinner for tonight
- Security and Privacy Considerations
- Re: W3C WPWG: Dinner for tonight
Thursday, 7 July 2016
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- wpwg-ACTION-22: Try to get a security review within bpce
- wpwg-ACTION-21: Try to get a security review organized within worldpay
- Re: Thoughts on Native Payments
- Re: ISO 4217 proposal to improve support for digital currencies
- ISO 4217 proposal to improve support for digital currencies
- wpwg-ACTION-20: Work on concrete spec language around currency codes
- W3C WPWG: Dinner for tonight
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] “Security Error” on different origins (#157)
- [w3c/webpayments] [Payment Apps] Extending invocation of payment apps with other techniques than HTTP (#156)
- [w3c/webpayments] What should be the user experience when an app is recommended for two methods? (#155)
Wednesday, 6 July 2016
- RE: Payment Apps Proposal
- Re: Thoughts on Native Payments
- Re: Thoughts on Native Payments
- Re: Thoughts on Native Payments
- Face to face notes
- Re: Web Payments Architecture Summary?
- Re: ANSI X9.122 Secure Customer Authentication for Internet Payments
- Re: Thoughts on Native Payments
- Re: Thoughts on Native Payments
Tuesday, 5 July 2016
- Re: Thoughts on Native Payments
- Thoughts on Native Payments
- Re: ANSI X9.122 Secure Customer Authentication for Internet Payments
- Updated (TR) drafts of Payment Request API and Payment Method Identifiers
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] Letting the payment app decide between HTTP and Javascript communication (#130)
- Re: ANSI X9.122 Secure Customer Authentication for Internet Payments
- Re: Web Payments Architecture Summary?
- RE: Web Payments Architecture Summary?
- Re: Web Payments Architecture Summary?
- ANSI X9.122 Secure Customer Authentication for Internet Payments
- Re: Payment Apps Proposal
- Re: New payment method draft
- Re: Web Payments Architecture Summary?
Monday, 4 July 2016
- Re: Web Payments Architecture Summary?
- Re: New payment method draft
- Re: Web Payments Architecture Summary?
- Presentation on Web Payments Core Messages and HTTP API
- Web Payments Architecture Summary?
- RE: New payment method draft
- RE: Payment Apps Proposal
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] Minor fix to register also (#154)
- [w3c/webpayments] Minor fix to register also (#154)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] Add reference to origin and fix a mistake in the registration API (#153)
- [w3c/webpayments] Add reference to origin and fix a mistake in the registration API (#153)
- Payment Apps Proposal
- Re: Security Review of 3 WPWG WDs (using W3C TAG checklist)
- Re: Security Review of 3 WPWG WDs (using W3C TAG checklist)
- Security Review of 3 WPWG WDs (using W3C TAG checklist)
Sunday, 3 July 2016
- RE: New Web Payments Architecture document proposal
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] Registration: Should payment instrument details be included? (#142)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] Editorial walk-through (#152)
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] Editorial walk-through (#152)
Saturday, 2 July 2016
Friday, 1 July 2016
- [w3c/webpayments] Editorial walk-through (#152)
- Re: New payment method draft
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] Replace empty section on development payment app good practices (#151)
- [w3c/webpayments] Replace empty section on development payment app good practices (#151)
- Re: New payment method draft
- Re: [w3c/webpayments] Fix payment options references + proposal on recommended apps (#150)
- New payment method draft